Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Med J Aust ; 214(1): 40-44, 2021 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33040381

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease that is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers are at risk of infection from aerosolisation of respiratory secretions, droplet and contact spread. There are a number of procedures that represent a high risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery. It is important that adequate training, equipment and procedures are in place to reduce that risk. RECOMMENDATIONS: We provide a number of key recommendations, which reduce the risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery and help protect patients and staff. These include general measures such as patient risk stratification, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, consideration to delay surgery in positive patients, and careful attention to theatre planning and preparation. There are also recommended procedural interventions during airway management, transoesophageal echocardiography, cardiopulmonary bypass, chest drain management and specific cardiothoracic surgical procedures. Controversies exist regarding the management of low risk patients undergoing procedures at high risk of aerosol generation, and recommendations for these patients will change depending on the regional prevalence, risk of community transmission and the potential for asymptomatic patients attending for these procedures. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: This statement reflects changes in management based on expert opinion, national guidelines and available evidence. Our knowledge with regard to COVID-19 continues to evolve and with this, guidance may change and develop. Our colleagues are urged to follow national guidelines and institutional recommendations regarding best practices to protect their patients and themselves. ENDORSED BY: Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons and the Anaesthetic Continuing Education Cardiac Thoracic Vascular and Perfusion Special Interest Group.


Asunto(s)
Aerosoles , COVID-19/prevención & control , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Anestesia , Australia , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/transmisión , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos , Consenso , Personal de Salud/educación , Humanos , Nueva Zelanda , Sociedades Médicas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Torácicos
2.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 31(2): 411-417, 2017 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27692903

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: General anesthesia with endobronchial intubation and one-lung positive-pressure ventilation always has been considered mandatory for thoracic surgery. Recently, there has been interest in nonintubated techniques for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in awake and sedated patients. The authors' center developed a nonintubated technique with spontaneous ventilation with the patient under general anesthesia using a supraglottic airway device. The authors believe that this was the first study to compare a nonintubated general anesthetic technique with an intubated general anesthetic technique for VATS. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Specialist cardiothoracic hospital in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent elective minor VATS over 8 months (n = 73). INTERVENTIONS: A nonintubated general anesthetic technique with spontaneous ventilation via a supraglottic airway device was used for minor VATS procedures. This was compared with a case-matched intubated group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics and surgical procedures. The anesthetic time was shorter in the nonintubated group (13.6±8.3 v 24.1±10.9 minutes, p<0.001). Surgical operating time and feasibility were similar. Intraoperatively, there were increases in end-tidal carbon dioxide (59.1±12.9 v 41.8±4.6, p<0.001) and respiratory rate (17.8±5.6 v 13.5±2.0, p<0.001) in the nonintubated group. Fewer patients in the nonintubated group had moderate-severe pain during recovery (19.4% v 48.4%, p = 0.02) and pain on discharge to the ward (25.8% v 61.3%, p = 0.004). There was a trend toward shorter recovery times, reduced oxygen requirement, and shorter hospital stays in the nonintubated group. CONCLUSIONS: A nonintubated general anesthetic technique is a feasible alternative to intubated general anesthesia for minor VATS procedures.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia General/métodos , Intubación Intratraqueal/métodos , Cirugía Torácica Asistida por Video/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anestesia General/normas , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Femenino , Humanos , Intubación Intratraqueal/normas , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Cirugía Torácica Asistida por Video/normas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA