Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines. METHODS: All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% (P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time (P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.

Development and Publication of Clinical Practice Parameters, Reviews, and Meta-analyses: A Report From the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Presidential Task Force.

The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) is committed to improving the quality, safety, and value that cardiothoracic anesthesiologists bring to patient care. To fulfill this mission, the SCA supports the creation of peer-reviewed manuscripts that establish standards, produce guidelines, critically analyze the literature, interpret preexisting guidelines, and allow experts to engage in consensus opinion. The aim of this report, commissioned by the SCA President, is to summarize the distinctions among these publications and describe a novel SCA-supported framework that provides guidance to SCA members for the creation of these publications. The ultimate goal is that through a standardized and transparent process, the SCA will facilitate up-to-date education and implementation of best practices by cardiovascular and thoracic anesthesiologists to improve patient safety, quality of care, and outcomes.

Practice Advisory for Preoperative and Intraoperative Pain Management of Cardiac Surgical Patients: Part 2.

Pain after cardiac surgery is of moderate to severe intensity, which increases postoperative distress and health care costs, and affects functional recovery. Opioids have been central agents in treating pain after cardiac surgery for decades. The use of multimodal analgesic strategies can promote effective postoperative pain control and help mitigate opioid exposure. This Practice Advisory is part of a series developed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Quality, Safety, and Leadership (QSL) Committee's Opioid Working Group. It is a systematic review of existing literature for various interventions related to the preoperative and intraoperative pain management of cardiac surgical patients. This Practice Advisory provides recommendations for providers caring for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This entails developing customized pain management strategies for patients, including preoperative patient evaluation, pain management, and opioid use-focused education as well as perioperative use of multimodal analgesics and regional techniques for various cardiac surgical procedures. The literature related to this field is emerging, and future studies will provide additional guidance on ways to improve clinically meaningful patient outcomes.

Practice Advisory for Preoperative and Intraoperative Pain Management of Thoracic Surgical Patients: Part 1.

Pain after thoracic surgery is of moderate-to-severe intensity and can cause increased postoperative distress and affect functional recovery. Opioids have been central agents in treating pain after thoracic surgery for decades. The use of multimodal analgesic strategies can promote effective postoperative pain control and help mitigate opioid exposure, thus preventing the risk of developing persistent postoperative pain. This practice advisory is part of a series developed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Quality, Safety, and Leadership (QSL) Committee's Opioid Working Group. It is a systematic review of existing literature for various interventions related to the preoperative and intraoperative pain management of thoracic surgical patients and provides recommendations for providers caring for patients undergoing thoracic surgery. This entails developing customized pain management strategies for patients, which include preoperative patient evaluation, pain management, and opioid use-focused education as well as perioperative use of multimodal analgesics and regional techniques for various thoracic surgical procedures. The literature related to this field is emerging and will hopefully provide more information on ways to improve clinically relevant patient outcomes and promote recovery in the future.

Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents in anaesthesia using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.

BACKGROUND: Guidance documents are a valuable resource to clinicians to guide evidenced-based decision making. The quality of guidelines in anaesthesia and across other specialties has been demonstrated to be poor. COVID-19 presented an urgent need for immediate guidance for anaesthetists as frontline clinicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of COVID-19 guidance documents using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. METHODS: A search was conducted in Ovid EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE to identify all COVID-19 anaesthesia guidance documents from 2020-2021. Thirty-eight guidance documents were selected for analysis by 4 independent appraisers using the AGREE II instrument, across its 6 domains and 23 items. A scoring threshold for high quality was agreed by the working group via consensus. RESULTS: Overall, the body of COVID-19 guidance documents achieved poor scores using AGREE II. Only 5% of documents met the high-quality criteria. Markers of quality included international and multi-institutional collaboration. Document title ('guideline' vs 'consensus statement'/ 'recommendations') did not yield any differences in domain scores and overall quality ratings. Compared with recent general anaesthesia guidelines, COVID-19 guidelines performed significantly worse. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 guidance documents published during the first two years of the pandemic lacked rigour and appropriate quality. This raises concern about their trustworthiness for use in clinical practice. Enhanced systems are required to ensure the integrity of rapidly formulated guidance.

Quality of recent clinical practice guidelines in anaesthesia publications using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.

Clinical practice guidelines are a valuable resource aiding medical decision-making based on scientific evidence. In anaesthesia, guidelines are increasing in both number and scope, influencing individual practice and shaping local departmental policy. The aim of this review is to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines published in high impact anaesthesia journals over the past 5 yr using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. A literature search was conducted in Scopus to identify all guidelines published in the top 10 anaesthesia journals as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor from 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for analysis by five independent appraisers using AGREE II. Each guideline was assessed across six domains and 23 items. Individual domain scores were calculated with a threshold agreed via consensus to represent high-quality guidelines. There was a significant increase in overall score over time (P=0.041), driven by Domain 3 (Rigour of Development, P=0.046). The raw overall score for Domain 3, however, was low. The other domains performed as expected based on previous studies, with Domains 1, 4, and 6 achieving high scores and Domains 2 and 5 incurring poor ratings. Most guidelines studied involved international collaboration but emerged from a single professional society. Use of an appraisal tool was stated as high but poorly detailed. The improvement in the overall score of guidelines and rigour of development is promising; however, only seven guidelines met high-quality criteria, suggesting room for improvement for the overall integrity of guidelines in anaesthesia.

EACTA/SCA Recommendations for the Cardiac Anesthesia Management of Patients With Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 Infection: An Expert Consensus From the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology and Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists With Endorsement From the Chinese Society of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesiology.

The European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology (EACTA) and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) aimed to create joint recommendations for the perioperative management of patients with suspected or proven severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection undergoing cardiac surgery or invasive cardiac procedures. To produce appropriate recommendations, the authors combined the evidence from the literature review, reevaluating the clinical experience of routine cardiac surgery in similar cases during the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) outbreak and the current pandemic with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, and the expert opinions through broad discussions within the EACTA and SCA. The authors took into consideration the balance between established procedures and the feasibility during the present outbreak. The authors present an agreement between the European and US practices in managing patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The recommendations take into consideration a broad spectrum of issues, with a focus on preoperative testing, safety concerns, overall approaches to general and specific aspects of preparation for anesthesia, airway management, transesophageal echocardiography, perioperative ventilation, coagulation, hemodynamic control, and postoperative care. As the COVID-19 pandemic is spreading, it will continue to present a challenge for the worldwide anesthesiology community. To allow these recommendations to be updated as long as possible, the authors provided weblinks to international public and academic sources providing timely updated data. This document should be the basis of future task forces to develop a more comprehensive consensus considering new evidence uncovered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Acute postoperative management after lung transplantation.

Despite many advances in the field of lung transplantation, lung transplant recipients have the lowest median survival of any solid organ transplant population. Complications such as reperfusion injury, graft rejection, infection, and anastomotic breakdown increase morbidity and mortality during the immediate postoperative period. Ventilator management with lung protective strategies can not only minimize ventilator time and mitigate the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia, but it may also decrease the risk of primary graft dysfunction and graft failure. Maintaining fluid balance, pain control, and preserving renal function also decrease postoperative complications. Advancements in immunotherapy with the use of calcineurin inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies have been shown to decrease the incidence of acute rejection. However, when unexpected complications occur, appropriately timed rescue therapies such as the initiation of extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation, retransplantation, and plasmapheresis are important considerations geared toward a positive transplant outcome.

Intraoperative anesthetic management of lung transplantation patients.

Lung transplantation is a high-risk procedure that requires a highly trained cardiothoracic anesthesiologist and a considerable degree of vigilance. In the 50 years since the first lung transplantation, improvements in immunosuppression, preservation solutions, and surgical techniques and technologies have led to increased survival rates. The development of the extracorporeal circulatory membrane oxygenation allowed for bridge to transplantation and for donor organ recovery from primary graft dysfunction post transplantation [1]. In addition, changes in the criteria for lung allocation will cause the anesthesiologist to encounter older recipients with comorbidities that would have been disqualifying for transplantation a decade ago [2].

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with subclavian artery cannulation in awake patients with pulmonary hypertension.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a challenging disease process to manage. Respiratory and hemodynamic changes that accompany general anesthesia lead to a significant risk of cardiovascular collapse. Certain cases of decompensated PH require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support as either a bridge to lung transplantation or bridge to recovery. Performing ECMO cannulation without intubation or general anesthesia in these patients may be safer given the severity of their underlying disease process. We present three cases of upper body ECMO cannulation performed on patients with pulmonary hypertension while awake and without mechanical ventilation.