A multicentre snapshot study of the incidence of serious procedural complications secondary to central venous catheterisation.

Despite the high number of central venous access devices inserted annually, there are limited data on the incidence of the associated procedural complications, many of which carry substantial clinical risk. This point was highlighted in the recently published Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland 'Safe vascular access 2016' guidelines. This trainee-led snapshot study aimed to identify the number of central venous catheter insertions and the incidence of serious complications across multiple hospital sites within a fixed two-week period. Secondary aims were to identify the availability of resources and infrastructure to facilitate safe central venous catheter insertion and management of potential complications. Fifteen hospital sites participated, completing an initial resource survey and daily identification of all adult central venous catheter insertions, with subsequent review of any complications detected. A total of 487 central venous catheter insertions were identified, of which 15 (3.1%) were associated with a significant procedural complication. The most common complication was failure of insertion, which occurred in seven (1.4%) cases. Facilities to enable safer central venous catheter insertion and manage complications varied widely between hospitals, with little evidence of standardisation of guidelines or protocols.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA Trial).

BACKGROUND: Health outcomes and costs are both important when deciding whether general (GA) or local (LA) anaesthesia should be used during carotid endarterectomy. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy under LA or GA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis for whom surgery was advised. METHODS: Using patient-level data from a large, multinational, randomized controlled trial (GALA Trial) time free from stroke, myocardial infarction or death, and costs incurred were evaluated. The cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per day free from an event, within a time horizon of 30 days. RESULTS: A patient undergoing carotid endarterectomy under LA incurred fewer costs (mean difference pound178) and had a slightly longer event-free survival (difference 0.16 days, but the 95 per cent confidence limits around this estimate were wide) compared with a patient who had GA. Existing uncertainty did not have a significant impact on the decision to adopt LA, over a wide range of willingness-to-pay values. CONCLUSION: If cost-effectiveness was considered in the decision to adopt GA or LA for carotid endarterectomy, given the evidence provided by this study, LA is likely to be the favoured treatment for patients for whom either anaesthetic approach is clinically appropriate.